Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Stefan Kangas writes: > >> That's a fair point. Likely they would not be aware of "test/misc" at >> first. OTOH we could document it in "test/file-organization.org". >> >> Here's three scenarios where adding a test to the existing files might >> not make sense: > > [...] > >> That said, if we can find a way to shoe-horn the stuff we need into the >> existing test suite without it being overly ugly, it's perfectly fine by >> me. Perhaps that would be less ugly than adding a new "test/misc" >> directory. > > There's certainly something to be said for consistency here: If we're > looking for a test of something in foo.el, we look in > lisp/foo-tests.el. And as you point out, cross-cutting linter stuff > doesn't really fit into that scheme at all. > > So upon further consideration, I agree with you that adding a test/misc > directory would be better in the long term. (That was in September.) How does the attached patch look? It runs all custom tests automatically - all of them marked as expensive, and two of them marked as expected to fail. We will probably want to fix up the failing tests at some point, too.